Appeal No. 1999-0843
Application No. 08/666,970
in the disclosure of the admitted prior art, the Examiner’s
35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of independent claim 1, and claims
2, 3, 6, 7, and 12-16 which fall with claim 1, is sustained.
We also sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-8 as being anticipated by
Kaneko. Considering representative claim 1, we agree with the
Examiner that the semiconductor device structure illustrated
in Figure 1 of Kaneko discloses that the electrode 4 has first
and second contact areas a and a being disposed laterally
1 2
opposite each other across a finger section.
We find Appellant’s arguments in response to this
rejection (Brief, pages 13 and 14) to be unpersuasive.
Initially, we find Appellant’s argument that Kaneko’s device
is directed to phase compensation rather than the heat
dissipation problem purported to be solved by Appellant’s
invention to be without merit in determining the
appropriateness of a rejection based on anticipation. We
further find to be unfounded Appellant’s further contention
that, contrary to the claimed invention, the contact areas 4a1
and 4a in Kaneko are located on the same side of an imaginary
2
center line of the structure, i.e., on the same side as the
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007